CISPA

Braindawg

Nobody's angry. Nobody's rebelious either. If you like the goverment f*cking with you and you basically say "take my money and freedom", be my guest.Sit back, enjoy your drink, and watch the internet you love, slowly parish away.

Nobody's angry. Nobody's rebelious either. If you like the goverment f*cking with you and you basically say "take my money and freedom", be my guest.Sit back, enjoy your drink, and watch the internet you love, slowly parish away.

Hypocrite.

Oh really? Have you read this bill, or any of the executive summaries of what it hopes to achieve? No? Are you aware of the powers it has potential to grant, the limits of it's scope and proposed application? No? Didn't think so. You seem to be under the illusion (or should that be delusion) that the internet is currently both private and free; it is in reality neither. And exactly how am I a hypocrite? I don't recall advocating the complete freedom and privacy of the internet, perhaps because I don't like in a delusional dream world and actually understand the topic at hand.

Braindawg

First off, nobody said the internet is either private nor free. But in no way do I want to see any bills that resemble PIPA or SOPA get passed. I'm not gonna put the effort into justifying what I wrote to some random guy on the web, so that kinda sums it up. If your head is really that far up your own ass that you can't see what's going on, then I feel really bad for ya, wait... No I don't.

First off, nobody said the internet is either private nor free. But in no way do I want to see any bills that resemble PIPA or SOPA get passed. I'm not gonna put the effort into justifying what I wrote to some random guy on the web, so that kinda sums it up. If your head is really that far up your own ass that you can't see what's going on, then I feel really bad for ya, wait... No I don't.

This is just a demonstration of how little you understand the subject, and how easily you are swayed by sensationalist rhetoric. This bill bears absolutely no similarity to SOPA, PIPA or ACTA in any way. It addresses an entirely different issue, through entirely different means, and even a layman with only the most basic understanding of computer terminology would be able to see that. But no, as usual, rhetoric gets in the way of intelligent debate and we have the usual procession of people far too eager to open their mouth on issues they no absolutely nothing about. Your unwillingness to actually explain your statements and views, and inability to deal with criticism without resorting to petty insults, is testament to this fact.

manofpeace

Up until this afternoon, the final vote on CISPA was supposed to be tomorrow. Then, abruptly, it was moved up today—and the House voted in favor of its passage with a vote of 248-168. But that's not even the worst part.

QUOTE

Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power.

QUOTE

CISPA is now a completely unsupportable bill that rewrites (and effectively eliminates) all privacy laws for any situation that involves a computer. Far from the defense against malevolent foreign entities that the bill was described as by its authors, it is now an explicit attack on the freedoms of every American.

It's time to stop waving signs around at these chuckleheads, folks. It isn't working. Even if this bill doesn't actually do anything, and simply adds to the pile of other useless internet bills/laws, the message it sends is despicable. These things are never used as they are said they are, and merely deface our privacy and freedoms.

manofpeace

Some people are speculating that Obama's promise to veto it is essentially a big show to make him look like a "hero" and boost his campaign for reelection. Doesn't sound too unlikely considering how close elections are. I just worry how they're treating the internet like some sort of toy to scare people.

na89340qv0n34b09q340

I've compiled a list a quotes that should console/inspire the US citizens of GTA Forums. Please note the first two, and take the last few into careful consideration, but interpret them in your own ways.

QUOTE

"The House passes all kinds of crazy stuff, the Senate is where legislation goes to die."

QUOTE

"Note that this is a 57% margin. If the same holds in the Senate, it won't pass cloture and won't reach the president's desk."

QUOTE

"Every US Citizen that reads & participates in [GTA FORUMS] needs to protest this. This will impact all of you if this goes through & is signed by the President.America, the home of the free & brave. This is no longer true anymore."

QUOTE

"GUNS"

QUOTE

QUOTE

Where/When are the protests starting?

"You start them. It's well within your power to make the people rise up. But you won't. No one does because everyone is fearful of their own government. I would, but Americans wouldn't listen to a [I'M NOT CANADIAN]. It's sad, watching from this side of the fence, really."

agent17

Some people are speculating that Obama's promise to veto it is essentially a big show to make him look like a "hero" and boost his campaign for reelection. Doesn't sound too unlikely considering how close elections are. I just worry how they're treating the internet like some sort of toy to scare people.

Obama also said he would veto NDAA, which didn't happen.

I almost wish SOPA passed instead, because as it stands CISPA is in many ways even worse.

Even if Obama does veto it (for the sake of public approval) you can bet you ass another bill will take it's place. Lets face it, the internet as we know it is going to die.

Can someone please explain to my why there is any expectation of privacy in a public sphere run and controlled largely by corporate entities which exists on a level outside the national? Surely those of you who have an understanding of the current legislation can see that there's no freedom in a public place in which you essemtially broadcast information (whether knowingly or not). It's not an affront to civil liberties if those liberties clearly never existed in the first place...

manofpeace

Can someone please explain to my why there is any expectation of privacy in a public sphere run and controlled largely by corporate entities which exists on a level outside the national? Surely those of you who have an understanding of the current legislation can see that there's no freedom in a public place in which you essemtially broadcast information (whether knowingly or not). It's not an affront to civil liberties if those liberties clearly never existed in the first place...

Since the internet exists outside the national, how can one country attempt to control it?

Can someone please explain to my why there is any expectation of privacy in a public sphere run and controlled largely by corporate entities which exists on a level outside the national? Surely those of you who have an understanding of the current legislation can see that there's no freedom in a public place in which you essemtially broadcast information (whether knowingly or not). It's not an affront to civil liberties if those liberties clearly never existed in the first place...

Since the internet exists outside the national, how can one country attempt to control it?

They aren't.

I really do struggle to believe some of the rhetoric surrounding this issue. How is increasing powers of surveillence on what is essentially a public place an attempt to limit or control it's use? Take the example of sea traffic in international waters as an example. No nation controls them, but they are a public place and their users are bound by legislation on two fronts. Firstly, the overriding "laws of the sea", which are agreed between nations. There's no overriding "law of the internet" so the next best example would be the T&C that all users must conform to, laid down by their ISP. Secondly, theres the law of the mation at which a ship is registered- in this case, the laws of the land in which the user operates.

The internet is a public place, governed by national and subnational legislation. There is absolutely no right to privacy in a public place. End of. And just like the registering nation of a ship has ultimate legal sanction over it's use, cargo and the laws that must be observed, the same is true in the nation of the user. There really isn't much more to say. If nations fail to legislate in a way that protects other nation's interests from harm using the cyber realm, it's legally the same in many circumstances as harbouring violent non-state actors. Which can be responded to through unilateral or multilateral military action.

The Yokel

You're weird. You have a lot of knowledge and information about politics, but you're always ignoring the human factor. Which is ridiculous since politics is all about people. And the human factor that matters here is the one proposing these laws and the one in favor of these laws. Do you honestly think they had your well being in mind when they proposed this act? Do you think they give a f*ck? You're just as likely to get burned by laws like this as the rest of the common folk. You might not give a f*ck about your civil rights being violated, but some people might object to that. Some people are actually aware that politicians are corrupted bastards working for corporations.

You're weird. You have a lot of knowledge and information about politics, but you're always ignoring the human factor.

Which, in this instance, is what? A small proportion of people who express any opinion at all, and most of that entirely irrelevant due to public campaigning by organisations whose vested interest is in portraying any kind of restriction, even one that has a reasonably decent basis in reality, as something negative? Case in point, the constant comparisons with SOPA and PIPA. I challenge any individual to indicate any kind of similarities between CISPA and SOPA aside from the fact they both deal with the internet.

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Friday, Apr 27 2012, 17:43)

Which is ridiculous since politics is all about people.

I know. But, at the end of the day, voters do what they're told, not what is necessarily best for them. You ask 100 people "do you want greater input in the running of your city/town", you'll get a 100% positive answer. You ask 100 people "would you be willing to give up your free time to help run this city/town, for no personal gain", you'll get a 10% positive answer. At the end of the day, people are more swayed by propaganda and rhetoric than they are ideas. That's not to say you can discard public opinion like yesterday's tabloid, but the personal factor of politics is far more about presentation than it is about policy. Laws are generally quite "boolean" in their nature, especially when it comes to this issue, you will inevitably restrict others. The question is whether that's beneficial. Not whether campaign groups can make a huge song and dance about it.

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Friday, Apr 27 2012, 17:43)

And the human factor that matters here is the one proposing these laws and the one in favor of these laws. Do you honestly think they had your well being in mind when they proposed this act? Do you think they give a f*ck?

Well, seen as it's quite restrictive in it's application (see my earlier comment) then I feel that it's pretty reasonable. I suppose you need to look at it in terms of "least harm". Remember, the vast majority of internet users are basically computer illiterate. From a basic balance of ham versus good, and assuming that legislation has to be as all-encompassing as possible, then surely it's better to implement legislation which protects the ignorant, silent majority at the expense of a small, free-loading minority who might also come under the negative repercussions of the same legislation? As much as I'd like to see proper education be the solution to this issue, that just isn't feasible.

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Friday, Apr 27 2012, 17:43)

You might not give a f*ck about your civil rights being violated, but some people might object to that.

Please explain to me how looking at what is essentially public information is a violation of a civil right. If people went on the assumption that the internet is a public place- which it is- then the entire concept of "infringement of cyber liberties" would be a non-issue. If you fancy proving that, from a legal perspective, the internet is a private space and therefore everything which operates inside it should be treated as personal or confidential, be my guest. But it just isn't true.

Slamman

On a serious note, and I'm partly thinking they will, BTW, but there was a televised Congress committee on Video and Internet broadcast on CSPAN 1 today, just ended less then an hour ago, I watched most of it, very very interesting

I will bring up something they seem to agree on, that's Internet Neutrality ...being essential to how to operate around and under.

There is a need for cracking down on piracy, illegal circumventing of mechanism for movies or IP, Hollywood has always been apposed to the films they make, offered outside the USA and inside the USA where consumers are not paying, but taking their product without compensation. At the end of the day, that comes back as higher product SELLING costs, you can't avoid it as a consumer, it also effects getting more for your dollar, as we argue about Rockstar worrying about PC gaming end from a perception that piracy software is a major part of it

Security of the Interwebs is the other factor, and it's very serious in fact.

RomansMoobs

f*ck you stay away from my internets. It's the one "freedom" we have. Even if this is just a small bill about "security", it's just the first step to other bills being passed, like SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, etc. The less regulation over the internet the better.

f*ck you stay away from my internets. It's the one "freedom" we have. Even if this is just a small bill about "security", it's just the first step to other bills being passed, like SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, etc. The less regulation over the internet the better.

Which would be all well and good if the internet was actually "free" in the first place, but it isn't. It never has been, and anyone who claims otherwise is either deluded or has been brainwashed by a campaign by various activist groups that see the internet as somehow both public and private, depending on their agenda or whims. You either have a public net with no expectation of privacy, or a private net governed by legislation and terms & conditions. We currently have the latter. The former is a nightmare scenario unless you have malicious intentions.